Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Michelle McConnell <br />From:Greg and Jamie Federighi [federighi1@comcast.net] <br />Sent:Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:40 PM <br />To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY) <br />Cc:'Ken/Marianne Wood'; bushnell.s@comcast.net; colleenspolley@msn.com; <br />corkie@olypen.com; lyeo222@aol.com; djoschu@aol.com; jsspc1@msn.com; <br />d2hummel@comcast.net; raincity@speakeasy.com; DOSUMURPHY@MSN.COM; <br />eolsen9218@comcast.net; jalopy@speakeasy.net; federighi1@comcast.net; <br />jposprey@msn.com; jimg@bbprintsource.com; a103footdragon@msn.com; <br />newdoor@hotmail.com; laura@luperrydesign.com; Lisa.Olund@SSAMarine.com; <br />llsrc@comcast.net; 'Mary Adams'; 'Michael F. Adams'; 'The Sinclairs'; <br />MRandKWood@aol.com; oonelsonjr@comcast.net; WheelerLodge@nehalemtel.net; <br />BOLSEN9218@COMCAST.NET; daviesrl@ptdefense.com; Judodude2000@yahoo.com; <br />scowoo@everyheart.net; Seth.Hummel@microsoft.com; sharongustafson@comcast.net; <br />jsohair@juno.com; svalentine1@bcglobal.net; steve@rmgsales.com; tdavis1127 <br />@hotmail.com; gatzs@aol.com; wurban@quest.net; 'Ken/Marianne Wood'; <br />bushnell.s@comcast.net; colleenspolley@msn.com; corkie@olypen.com; lyeo222@aol.com; <br />djoschu@aol.com; jsspc1@msn.com; d2hummel@comcast.net; raincity@speakeasy.com; <br />DOSUMURPHY@MSN.COM; eolsen9218@comcast.net; jalopy@speakeasy.net; federighi1 <br />@comcast.net; jposprey@msn.com; jimg@bbprintsource.com; a103footdragon@msn.com; <br />newdoor@hotmail.com; laura@luperrydesign.com; Lisa.Olund@SSAMarine.com; <br />llsrc@comcast.net; 'Mary Adams'; 'Michael F. Adams'; 'The Sinclairs'; <br />MRandKWood@aol.com; oonelsonjr@comcast.net; WheelerLodge@nehalemtel.net; <br />Terrie.randecker@wamu.net; BOLSEN9218@COMCAST.NET; daviesrl@ptdefense.com; <br />Judodude2000@yahoo.com; 'Ken/Marianne Wood'; dickerson.marylou@leg.wa.gov <br />Subject:Shoreline Master Plan comments <br />Categories:LASMP Public Comment <br />We are writing to express our strong objection to the proposed SMP. <br /> <br />We are land owners of shoreline property. We are stewards for the land. There are many regulations in <br />place already to protect the environment, and to set guidelines for its use. This document would limit <br />owners’ use and control of the land too much while it expands public access and rights too much. <br /> <br />Public access seems a central goal, and the SMP “encourages water-oriented recreational use as an <br />economic asset...”, and includes wording such as “shoreline development by private entities should <br />provide public access when the development would generate the demand…” The public generally does not <br />care for the land as the landowner does, as we have seen many times, including fires left burning when <br />they go home, and leaving garbage that we haul out. Why are the public rights and access expanded and <br />mandated, while the private property owners’ rights are being further limited? <br />As this proposal is written, a few people in government can restrict a private landowner from making a <br />path to the beach, from building a dock, even from rebuilding after a natural disaster. Yet the “public <br />access structures shall be exempt from the shoreline buffer requirements”. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission recommended a 50’ buffer, with much public comment being considered, and <br />yet the SMP disregarded this and tripled the buffer to 150’, plus 10 more feet to a building. <br /> <br />The document is sweeping in scope and vague in its wording. Why should a few people in a government <br />office have such complete control over all others? All the years of paying taxes, caring for, and planning <br />for use of the land will be for naught if one cannot even build a family dwelling on it close enough to see <br />the water, make a path to the beach, or maintain the vegetation on their property, but the public is <br />mandated access. <br />1 <br /> <br />